"Equator" problem

  • 454 Replies
  • 64712 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #180 on: October 29, 2014, 03:18:08 PM »
WHY IS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE CENTERED TO THE EARTH'S EQUATOR (and not to the Sun's equator)???

Alpha2Omega is doing such a good job on you that there isn't much to say but I do want to respond to the quote above.

What do you mean when you say the universe is centered to the equator? Are you wondering why it appears as if the stars are all spinning around what geocentrists call the axial tilt instead of what we call the orbital plane / plane of the ecliptic?



Care to take a guess why it looks like that?

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #181 on: October 30, 2014, 04:05:43 AM »
This is perfectly in accordance with FET, and totally discordant with HC:







See also this: http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

Alpha2Omega, you are nice, inteligent and well educated person, and i must admit that i enjoyed to discuss with you, but we came to the point where you have to show that you are not just kind, smart and educated, now you have to show that you are a person with integrity also.

We have to follow the proofs whereever they lead us if we want to make out of this beutiful Earth good place for living for all human beings, for every one of them. We will never succeed to accomplish this task if we continue to hide the truth, and the first truth is that we don't live on a planet, but on the Earth!

Important lesson about a great importance of telling the truth all the time (no matter what):

http://www.energeticforum.com/265263-post549.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/265264-post550.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/265267-post553.html

KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEGINNING: http://rutube.ru/video/9b8eec2d5b68ad6101657add1aef2287/
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #182 on: October 30, 2014, 06:09:41 AM »
now you have to show that you are a person with integrity also.

oh the irony. I've never witnessed a beat down quite as severe on these forums as pungent as what Omega has done to you here.



This looks a lot like an analemma. Where did you get this from?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #183 on: October 30, 2014, 06:52:37 AM »
oh the irony. I've never witnessed a beat down quite as severe on these forums
It's been like watching Mike Tyson vs Minnie Mouse.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #184 on: October 30, 2014, 07:39:53 AM »
Although he punches hard, he is not strong enough to knock me down, but you little pussies, what's the use of you?



Can't believe that your ignorance is of such a legendary proportions so that you are completely unable to distinguish who have just knocked down whom?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #185 on: October 30, 2014, 07:41:31 AM »
@cikljamas, if this were a fight the referee would have stepped in long ago for your own protection.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #186 on: October 30, 2014, 07:46:19 AM »
Good fighter needs to know to take the hits that eventually won. I just won, didn't you notice? Blind or stupid?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #187 on: October 30, 2014, 07:47:57 AM »
Quote
Good fighter needs to know to take the hits that eventually won.
eh, what?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #188 on: October 30, 2014, 07:51:50 AM »
Wow, much delusion. Very fantasy.

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #189 on: October 30, 2014, 08:31:30 AM »
cikljamas, the debate between yourself and Alpha2Omega has been, without hyperbole, akin to this:

cikljamas: "Two plus two equals fish!"
Alpha2Omega: "Fish are a biological organism, and the numbers that you are using are part of mathematics. While mathematics can be used to describe animals during an equation, the equation itself must be expressed as a number, not an animal."
cikljamas: "Then how come when four somethings come together, they form a fish?"
Alpha2Omega: "They don't. And I believe the word you were looking for was 'numbers,' but numbers never transform into aquatic life."
cikljamas: "You are so close! Aquatic life come about when...?"
Alpha2Omega: "When reproduction occurs. Which has nothing to do with mathematics, except when used to describe specific units during the mating process. But a nebulous 'two' has no part in that process."
cikljamas: "Exactly! Therefore I win! Two plus two equals fish!!!"

THE REST OF US:
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:37:37 AM by Socratic Amusement »
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #190 on: October 30, 2014, 08:34:47 AM »
cikljamas, the debate between yourself and Alpha2Omega has been, without hyperbole, akin to this:

cikljamas: "Two plus two equals fish!"
Alpha2Omega: "Fish are a biological organism, and the numbers that you are using are part of mathematics. While mathematics can be used to describe animals during an equation, the equation itself must be expressed as a number, not an animal."
cikljamas: "Then how come when four somethings come together, they form a fish?"
Alpha2Omega: "They don't. And I believe the word you were looking for was 'numbers,' but numbers never transform into aquatic life."
cikljamas: "You are so close! Aquatic life come about when...?"
Alpha2Omega: "When reproduction occurs. Which has nothing to do with mathematics, except when used to describe specific units during the mating process. But a nebulous 'two' has no part in that process."
cikljamas: "Exactly! therefore I win! Two plus two equals fish!!!"

THE REST OF US:

I know I'm not supposed to but.. LOL

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #191 on: October 30, 2014, 09:19:08 AM »
Dear little children, it seems that you didn't understand what is speeding up, maintaining the speed, slowing down, maintaining the speed etc...No, it's not the Earth, it's the sun, it's really that simple, but knowing that you weren't able to infer this simple fact by yourself, i just let you know...Maybe now your little brains start to operate, at least just for a while, just a little bit, before you return to your playing court.

CAUTION, CHILDREN PLAYING!
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 09:21:33 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #192 on: October 30, 2014, 09:25:28 AM »
Dear little children, it seems that you didn't understand what is speeding up, maintaining the speed, slowing down, maintaining the speed etc...No, it's not the Earth, it's the sun, it's really that simple, but knowing that you weren't able to infer this simple fact by yourself, i just let you know...Maybe now your little brains start to operate, at least just for a while, just a little bit, before you return to your playing court.

CAUTION, CHILDREN PLAYING!

Of course we (or at least I) knew that. Why else would I have mentioned an analemma?

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #193 on: October 30, 2014, 09:39:40 AM »
Dear little children, it seems that you didn't understand what is speeding up, maintaining the speed, slowing down, maintaining the speed etc...No, it's not the Earth, it's the sun, it's really that simple, but knowing that you weren't able to infer this simple fact by yourself, i just let you know...Maybe now your little brains start to operate, at least just for a while, just a little bit, before you return to your playing court.

CAUTION, CHILDREN PLAYING!

I love watching Flat Earthers flail in denial.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #194 on: October 30, 2014, 11:04:13 AM »
This is perfectly in accordance with FET, and totally discordant with HC:






It's one thing to claim the Analemma is discordant with the Heliocentric model and another one entirely to demonstrate that it actually is. Your drawings here demonstrate nothing of the sort but do show that you really don't understand elliptical orbits at all, even in the most general sense.

In the embellished drawing of the orbit why is the speed "maintaining" at one of the apsides and changing from "maintaining" to "slowing" at the other? Shouldn't each be opposite the other? You really only need two of the colors shown - light blue "speeding up" (3. July to 3. January in the drawing) and green "slowing down" (3. January to 3. July), since "maintaining" only occurs for a moment at each of the apsides.

Also, saying it is in perfect accordance with FET isn't meaningful since there's no consistent FE model - at least none that I've seen - that makes useful predictions of the daily motion of the sun explaining the Analemma, among everything else we know about the apparent motion of the Sun. Most of them can't even explain sunsets and the rest only in the vaguest terms, and useless for making actual predictions. If you have, or know of one, please bring it forward. We've been begging for that.

This popped up after the rest of this post was composed. It answers a question I didn't think necessary to ask, but was wrong. Rather than re-write the above, consider the following as amendment.
<Gratuitous snarky comment> it seems that you didn't understand what is speeding up, maintaining the speed, slowing down, maintaining the speed etc...No, it's not the Earth, it's the sun, it's really that simple, but knowing that you weren't able to infer this simple fact by yourself, i just let you know... <more snark>.
No, I certainly didn't because you never said. Since you showed the entire northern loop of the Analemma as "maintaining speed" even though the apparent position of the Sun moved back and forth by about 4 degrees in azimuth (16 minutes of time) in 4 months, and at the bottom "maintaining speed" as it changed azimuth by about 5 degrees (20 minutes) at a variable rate in half that time, it sure as heck didn't look like you were referring to apparent speed of the Sun being constant! You did refer to varying orbital speed at varying points in the orbit recently in this discussion, and the diagram showed the position of earth at various points in its orbit, and the markings didn't make sense referring to either orbital speed or apparent speed of the sun, so I guessed (wrongly, it turns out), you were being consistent. Ill try to avoid that mistake in the future. You really need to use terms consistently, or at least explain how they're being used, if your aim is to educate rather than to confuse.

Anyway, in light of the clarification...

The apparent sun will be "moving slower than" the mean sun when apparent solar days are longer than mean solar days and "moving faster than" the apparent solar days are shorter than mean solar days. Considering only the effect of the elliptical orbit, apparent solar days are shortest at aphelion (3. July in your diagram) and longest at perihelion (3. January). Since the Sun "slows down", as the Earth "speeds up" in its orbit (July to January), and the Sun "speeds up" as the Earth "slows down" (January to July), then you still need only two colors, as above, but they're swapped. "Maintaining" is still just the moment they switch. Your embellished drawing is still wrong. Add in the effect of obliquity, and your spray-painted addition to the drawing is still wrong.

Everything I stated above your clarification except the dates for "slowing" and "speeding up" being swapped due to your ambiguous terminology still stands.

Quote
See also this: http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html
What is in that link and why should I visit it? Every one of the links at that domain that I've read so far has been so filled with errors, misinformation, and misconceptions that reading them only points more issues to debunk. If this one's different, please describe briefly what it purports to explain and how it adds to the discussion at hand.

Quote
Alpha2Omega, you are nice, inteligent and well educated person, and i must admit that i enjoyed to discuss with you, but we came to the point where you have to show that you are not just kind, smart and educated, now you have to show that you are a person with integrity also.
So now you're calling me a liar in nice terms. On what basis? Because I disagree with you on technical issues?

Since you brought up the integrity issue, can you provide the requested citation for this assertion...
In addition:

Quote
Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"
... or is this something you just made up to create FUD? If this is not the case, please provide a citation for the claim. If you did make it up, or even read it somewhere but just tossed it into the argument without any scrutiny at all or any intention to back it up, how honest is that?

Quote
We have to follow the proofs whereever they lead us if we want to make out of this beutiful Earth good place for living for all human beings, for every one of them. We will never succeed to accomplish this task if we continue to hide the truth, and the first truth is that we don't live on a planet, but on the Earth!

Important lesson about a great importance of telling the truth all the time (no matter what):

<energeticforum links>

KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEGINNING:
<youtube link>
I'm fully aware of the importance of telling the truth. That's why I try to do so at all times. Sometimes I make mistakes - who doesn't - but don't intentionally lie.

You might consider heeding your own advice. The beginning of knowledge is actually looking at evidence. Simply dismissing evidence that doesn't match your preconceived notions is willful ignorance, not a way to gain knowledge.

Calling your opponent a liar and declaring victory without actually successfully defending your argument is not a viable debating technique. What does this say about the strength of your argument?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #195 on: October 30, 2014, 01:11:34 PM »
Shall we observe this illustration once more:



When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.

When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!

A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!

This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!

Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?

Concerning your request for a citation the best i can do right now is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html

When you open above link just scroll down a little bit, and you will see a screenshot of the page that you are looking for...

P.S. I didn't call you a liar, not even in nice terms, i just appeal to you to find enough courage to admit the obvious truth. However, this is not an easy task, whatever someone could think of it, so there is no irony in my words...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #196 on: October 30, 2014, 02:22:45 PM »
You do realize that the shape of the analemma depends entirely on your location on earth. As a matter of fact it is UPSIDE DOWN when you are in the southern hemisphere. Note that this impossible on a flat earth.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #197 on: October 31, 2014, 03:44:09 PM »
Shall we observe this illustration once more:



When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.
No, you still have it backwards. When the Earth speeds up in its orbit, the apparent solar day lengthens, i.e. the Sun appears to slow down relative to the mean sun. This happens because the Earth has moved a greater distance in a similar time (it's moving faster, remember?), so it needs more rotation (which takes longer since the rate of rotation is a constant, remember?) to bring the Sun back to the same meridian a day later. This is simple geometry - sketch it out if you need to.

If you prefer to think of the Earth as fixed while the whole freakin' universe spins once a day with the Sun orbiting inside it, then the effect is exactly the same. I've been saying all along the apparent motion of the Sun against the background stars won't distinguish between the two models. Other things do.

Quote
When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!

A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!

This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!

You've got the effect of orbital speed backwards. Since the premise your proof is built on is wrong, the proof is not valid.

See the dashed green line is concave upward January - June? This is because the Earth's orbital speed is slowing. See that it's concave downward July - December? That's because it's speeding up.

"When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun"

The Earth isn't speeding up only September-December. Are you basing that statement on the black line, which also includes obliquity, which is unrelated to the speed in orbit?

Quote
Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?
Can you describe the specific error here instead of just giving the link? Those links have loads of errors and misconceptions, and discussing each one would totally throw the discussion off track. Which may be what you want. We don't need another basket full of things to discuss; we've got enough already.

Quote
Concerning your request for a citation the best i can do right now is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html

When you open above link just scroll down a little bit, and you will see a screenshot of the page that you are looking for...

Since you give this as the citation I requested, I looked at it. Ignoring everything else in that link, here's this claim
Quote
Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

in context:


The rather breathless (and still unattributed) text says that an early WAG at the length of Astronomical Unit (AU - the Sun's distance from the Earth) by Kepler in the early 17th century was about 12 million miles, and it's been subsequently revised significantly upward (to about 93 million miles). I don't know if the claimed 12 million mile estimate by Kepler is true or not (he had no way to determine this accurately), but, in fact, it is well established that until the mid-18th century the length of the AU was not known. In 1677 Edmond Halley proposed an elegant geometric method for determining the AU, but it was not until the 1761 transit of Venus that this could be accomplished. Here is a detailed description of the method.

What we had was cikljamas' quote taken out of context that "modern astronomers" have lengthened the AU by almost 100 million miles. What he didn't bother to mention was that the "modern astronomers" referred to did this 250 years ago and revised a much-too-small estimate of the AU (if there even was one) to close to the current value. By leaving this key piece of information out, the clear implication of "modern astronomers" is actually, like, "modern", as in, say, within the last 100 years or less, and this suggests that secret cabal "really" knows the AU is almost 200 million miles, not the 93 million mile "lie" fed to us "unwitting sheep". I doubt that cikljamas even knew any of this, he just accepted the claim, omitted key information (that the original value was 12 million miles for the AU) and dumped it here as FUD. Nice.
Quote
P.S. I didn't call you a liar, not even in nice terms, i just appeal to you to find enough courage to admit the obvious truth. However, this is not an easy task, whatever someone could think of it, so there is no irony in my words...
It sure reads like you did. The first definition of "integrity" is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles" and you glibly go on and on about "the Heliocentric lie" here. If you meant "courage" you should have used a term that meant that.

"Find enough courage to admit the obvious truth"? Back atcha. If you're getting tired of being shown wrong, and why, in detail, you can throw in the towel at any time.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #198 on: November 01, 2014, 02:42:01 AM »
What a waste of talent! What a pity!
You gave me a straight answer, so now i can respond to you in a straight manner also:

I really have hoped that you were going to pick up enough courage to admit the obviousness of the self-evident facts, but unfortunately my hopes were in vain.

Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too. You disappointed me a lot! Following  vigorous testimony of the great german writer fit so well with your integrity:

"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."


Even the great astronomer Humboldt had a big difficulties with finding enough courage to admit the first truth (HC is a brazen lie) let alone to go the whole hog (and admit that the Earth is flat)!

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

I confess I do not understand how Humboldt could really have believed in the globularity of the world, when he penned the following passage, knowing, as a Cosmogonist, that water occupies, at the very lowest computation, at least three times the extent of the surface of the land "Among the causes which tend to lower the mean annual temperature, I include the following :—Elevation above the level of the sea, when not forming part of an extended plain."

" Cosmos," Vol. I., p. 326, Bohn's Edition.

Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!

The Unpardonable Sin
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #199 on: November 01, 2014, 05:52:57 AM »
Ahhhh cikljamas, so disappointing.

You bang on about integrity, and then once shown you are incorrect with numbers and charts, you screech about imaginary friends instead of dealing with reality. And then claim victory because you can quote some fairy tales.

Well, I can quote fictional books too, but my quote has more applicability to the real world.

'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'

Sherlock Holmes

-A Scandal in Bohemia
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #200 on: November 01, 2014, 11:14:00 AM »
Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies. If you can live with them i can live with them too.
Quote
Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, i win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!!!
It's going to be a lot harder for you to deny that you're calling me a liar and declaring victory. As before, that's not an effective debating technique.

Since I'm not lying I have no trouble with anything I have said. I may be mistaken about the geometry of the solar system, perhaps, but I don't think so; if I am you have completely failed to show where.

Many people derive great comfort in religious faith and if it helps them get through difficulties and live honorable and productive lives, that's wonderful. I don't begrudge you your faith and hope that faith provides comfort to you. I do believe you are misapplying it here, however.

Since you've taken to philosophical quotations, I'll leave this topic with this, attributed to Caesar Baronius, a 16th and 17th-Century Italian Cardinal and ecclesiastical historian:

"The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

We still have the discussion of the midnight Sun and a picture you provided of a particular Scandinavian town at twilight (but no other details) queued up. After your last few posts, I can presume that even if I provide patiently explained, detailed geometric reasons why your ideas are wrong, you will deny they're correct but fail to refute them, then just ignore them or call them lies, and insist that you know "the real truth" while I serve that "other guy". If that's the case, there may be little point in continuing that topic and we'll save both of us some time. I must say I have learned from this discussion (in particular, a better understanding of details about the Equation of Time ), so it wasn't a complete waste for me, and I can hope that explaining them here, at least someone else may benefit. For this reason, if you want to move on to your notion about the impossibility of the Midnight Sun if earth were spherical, just say so.

[Edit] Grammatical correction.
[Edit] Corrected correction.
[Edit] Moved last sentence in original second paragraph ahead, split into two sentences, and modified slightly to be the new second paragraph.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 02:36:25 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #201 on: November 01, 2014, 11:17:42 AM »

You gave me a straight answer

....

Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies.

Well, that's consistent....
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #202 on: November 01, 2014, 07:00:30 PM »
Anyway, one thing that you should be aware of: You cannot win this fight because you fight against the Word of a living God who created Heaven and Earth! I have chosen to serve Him, you chose to serve one other guy, so you lose, I win. You are free to choose between lie and truth, but don't forget: You are responsible and you will be responsible for all your choices!

You don't seem to be cognisant of what actually defines a debate cikljamas.  A debate is defined as "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers".   It is NOT—as you seem to continually believe—a "fight".

There is no "winner" and no "loser" as you seem to think.

Incidentally, to bring your belief for the existence of a supernatural entity (your "god") to the table is one of the weakest and most self-damaging arguments you can offer.  True science is no place for fairy tales and ancient myths—they're in the purview of priests and medicine men, and churches and temples.

Personally, I for one am personally responsible for the consequences of my own choices, whereas you lay the ultimate responsibility of your choices at the feet of some imaginary friend of yours up in the sky.  If something does goes wrong in your little world, then you can always claim it was "God's will" and absolve yourself of any responsibility and assuage your conscience.  I'm sure you justify the horrendous Levite Massacre by claiming it was God's will that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children?  Or it's your God's will that damns homosexuals to be put to death?

Then again, nobody relishes an unjust fight to the death more than a group of religious zealots.    >:(


*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #203 on: November 02, 2014, 03:44:12 AM »
@Alpha2Omega, don't be ridiculous!

Where do you think you can hide from this truth:

Quote
Shall we observe this illustration once more:



When the Earth allegedly speeds up, in reality the Sun speeds up instead, when the Earth allegedly slows down, it is the Sun which really slows down.

When the Earth allegedly speeds up (September - December) the apparent sun should be behind the mean sun, but it is not (it is ahead), and vice versa, when the Earth allegedly slows down (January - April) the apparent sun should be ahead the mean sun, but it is not (it is behind)!

A green dashed line must be replaced with a blue sprayed line which i subsequently added to show how it would really be if the Earth traveled around the Sun in the same direction in which she allegedly rotates on it's axis!

This is very powerful proof against the trueness of heliocentric theory, which proof strongly support validity of my claim "i won this game"!

Very similar fatal heliocentric error is shown in this link http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html , don't be afraid to open it, why do you hesitate, you said you are afraid of finding an errors, funny reason for not to open this link, since if there is anything erroneous in it, you can use it against me, am i right?

Concerning your request for a citation the best i can do right now is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/263172-post251.html

When you open above link just scroll down a little bit, and you will see a screenshot of the page that you are looking for...

P.S. I didn't call you a liar, not even in nice terms, i just appeal to you to find enough courage to admit the obvious truth. However, this is not an easy task, whatever someone could think of it, so there is no irony in my words...

Where is that place where you could hide from above truth? Tell me, where is that place? No, you don't have to tell me, I will tell you: the only place where you can hide from above truth is your deliberately self-deluded mind.

Once more:

What really represents a green dashed line is the changing speed of the Sun which is directly proportional to the apparent sun (or to be more precise: to the apparent sun as how it is related to the mean sun).

That is why the speed of the sun and the apparent sun can be described with one-same amplitude (a green dashed line).

On the other hand, if the Earth were in motion (as HC fraudulent theory claims), then an amplitude of a green dashed line wouldn't by any means be in accordance  with the amplitude of the apparent sun, because in that hypothetical case those two amplitudes would be in inversely proportional relation.

Hence, a blue sprayed line represents the hypothetical apparent sun as how it would look like if the HC fraudulent theory wouldn't be fraudulent but true!

How great idiot someone has to be to be unable to understand such a simple and such obvious argument against fraudulent HC theory?

How great liar someone has to be to be able to pretend that this simple, obvious argument doesn't show what it really shows?

You still haven't opened this link: http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

Well, i will open it for you:

Quote
Observational fact
The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

After you admit the trueness of above two irrefutable arguments, there will be no need for answering to the next even more compelling argument against fraudulent HC theory:

Quote
According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt, the Southern hemisphere is more exposed (than Northern hemisphere) to the Sun's sharp ("more vertical") rays, so we enjoy Summer in the South and Winter in the North and vice versa.

But, what scatters wet RET dreams is the fact that in January we have deadly synergy of the two important factors: the first factor: significant decrease of the distance between the Earth (which is closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July) and the Sun; and the second factor: Sun's ("more vertical") rays hit the Southern Hemisphere under sharper angles comparing it with Northern hemisphere. But these sharper angles are the very same angles under which Sun's rays hit the Northern Hemisphere in July. So, why then in January in Southern hemisphere isn't 3 % (150 000 000 / 5 000 000) hotter than it is in July in Northern hemisphere? .........Don't forget: The angles are the same!!!

If the Earth were round and so far away from the Sun we would have to deal with the same problem (significant temperature difference between North and South) in Winter time also, that is to say, in July when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, Southern hemisphere this time should be tilted away from the Sun which would again have deadly impact for Southerners who would instantly freeze to death if southern-winter temperatures were this time 3 % lower comparing them with the northern-winter temperatures. Don't forget: The angles are still the same!!!

Just in case that you are not aware of the significance of that percentage (3%):

"If the Sun were 5% closer, then the water would boil up from the oceans and if the Sun were just 1% farther away, then the oceans would freeze, and that gives you just some idea of the knife edge we are on."

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!!

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #204 on: November 02, 2014, 10:32:47 AM »
@Alpha2Omega, don't be ridiculous!

Where do you think you can hide from this truth:

<Quoted post replaced with link>
I already answered that post here.

Your response was to call me a liar. Remember?

Your entire last post (every word of it) is a bunch of shameful, deliberate lies.
If you don't remember this, you really should get what's causing it checked. I'm not being snarky, I really mean it.

If you do remember this, then screw you! Go back and read the answers I gave the first time. They're the same now. And they're not lies, whether you want to believe they are or not.

Quote
Where is that place where you could hide from above truth? Tell me, where is that place? No, you don't have to tell me, I will tell you: the only place where you can hide from above truth is your deliberately self-deluded mind.

Once more:

What really represents a green dashed line is the changing speed of the Sun which is directly proportional to the apparent sun (or to be more precise: to the apparent sun as how it is related to the mean sun).

That is why the speed of the sun and the apparent sun can be described with one-same amplitude (a green dashed line).

On the other hand, if the Earth were in motion (as HC fraudulent theory claims), then an amplitude of a green dashed line wouldn't by any means be in accordance  with the amplitude of the apparent sun, because in that hypothetical case those two amplitudes would be in inversely proportional relation.

Hence, a blue sprayed line represents the hypothetical apparent sun as how it would look like if the HC fraudulent theory wouldn't be fraudulent but true!

How great idiot someone has to be to be unable to understand such a simple and such obvious argument against fraudulent HC theory?

How great liar someone has to be to be able to pretend that this simple, obvious argument doesn't show what it really shows?
Still going on with the "self-deluded", "fraudulent", "idiot", "liar" schtick because someone disagrees with you on a technical issue and backs up the reasoning? There is a lot of anger here. Chill, man.

Quote
You still haven't opened this link: http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

Well, i will open it for you:

Quote
Observational fact
The Sun in the sky during the summer in the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) travels in a southern arc across the sky which is a West-West-South direction until noon and then a West-West-North direction until midnight as this illustration below shows:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

Heliocentric theory:
The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). It spins on its axis just over 360° in 24 hours and travels around the sun in one year. It tilts 23.44° on its axis so that at the height of the summer (solstice), one hemisphere will be nearer to the sun than the other, and in 6 months on the other side of the sun, this same hemisphere will be further away (winter solstice). So, the heliocentric theory states that the Northern hemisphere (above the Tropic of Cancer) in the summer solstice tilts towards the sun at 23.44°.

So far so good. The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. Now imagine any location in the Northern hemisphere (NH) above the Tropic of Cancer as it rotates anti-clockwise. At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc, as the flipped illustration below demonstrates:

http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

This is another valid, strong argument against the fraudulent HC lie, and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

After you admit the trueness of above two irrefutable arguments, there will be no need for answering to the next even more compelling argument against fraudulent HC theory:

Quote
According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt, the Southern hemisphere is more exposed (than Northern hemisphere) to the Sun's sharp ("more vertical") rays, so we enjoy Summer in the South and Winter in the North and vice versa.

But, what scatters wet RET dreams is the fact that in January we have deadly synergy of the two important factors: the first factor: significant decrease of the distance between the Earth (which is closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July) and the Sun; and the second factor: Sun's ("more vertical") rays hit the Southern Hemisphere under sharper angles comparing it with Northern hemisphere. But these sharper angles are the very same angles under which Sun's rays hit the Northern Hemisphere in July. So, why then in January in Southern hemisphere isn't 3 % (150 000 000 / 5 000 000) hotter than it is in July in Northern hemisphere? .........Don't forget: The angles are the same!!!

If the Earth were round and so far away from the Sun we would have to deal with the same problem (significant temperature difference between North and South) in Winter time also, that is to say, in July when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, Southern hemisphere this time should be tilted away from the Sun which would again have deadly impact for Southerners who would instantly freeze to death if southern-winter temperatures were this time 3 % lower comparing them with the northern-winter temperatures. Don't forget: The angles are still the same!!!

Just in case that you are not aware of the significance of that percentage (3%):

"If the Sun were 5% closer, then the water would boil up from the oceans and if the Sun were just 1% farther away, then the oceans would freeze, and that gives you just some idea of the knife edge we are on."

According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!!
And, as expected, that quoted link is full of errors and misconceptions. The first part is easily disproved, not irrefutable. All you have to remember is that, if you're north of the Tropic of Cancer, according to conventional HC thinking the noonday sun has to be south of you at any time of year. And it is. QED.

At the beginning of the second part:
"According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt,"

Stop. Just, please stop.

The rest is no better.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #205 on: November 02, 2014, 11:43:48 AM »

I already answered that post here.



And, as expected, that quoted link is full of errors and misconceptions. The first part is easily disproved, not irrefutable. All you have to remember is that, if you're north of the Tropic of Cancer, according to conventional HC thinking the noonday sun has to be south of you at any time of year. And it is. QED.

No, it is not!

At the beginning of the second part:
"According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt,"

"due to the alleged Earth's tilt" is related to what comes after these words, not before, are you stupid or what?

Stop. Just, please stop.

The truth can be really painful, so i won't torture you any more, there is no need for that since every sane person can realize very easily how great and blatant lie HC really is, on the basis of already here presented arguments, but if you were a masochist we could provide even many more arguments against this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics...


You should know better tolerate your own defeats....
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39844
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #206 on: November 02, 2014, 12:09:35 PM »
And, as expected, that quoted link is full of errors and misconceptions. The first part is easily disproved, not irrefutable. All you have to remember is that, if you're north of the Tropic of Cancer, according to conventional HC thinking the noonday sun has to be south of you at any time of year. And it is. QED.

No, it is not!
When is the noonday sun ever north of the Tropic of Cancer?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #207 on: November 02, 2014, 01:52:03 PM »
Did you remember calling me a liar or not? If not, maybe someone hacked your account and is posting as you; if that's the case you should change your password at the very least. Given your preachy attitude, I presume you don't use drugs or alcohol (although you never know), so severe memory problems should be checked medically.

Is the cute "Facepalms" poster an effort to simply sidestep the answers to your earlier post without addressing them? Or, does the countdown mean that you're scoffing at the next point? If the latter, you never responded to the answers at all. Did you even read them? What, if any, do you have a problem with?

And, as expected, that quoted link is full of errors and misconceptions. The first part is easily disproved, not irrefutable. All you have to remember is that, if you're north of the Tropic of Cancer, according to conventional HC thinking the noonday sun has to be south of you at any time of year. And it is. QED.

No, it is not!
The Sun is not always south at noontime from north of the Tropic of Cancer? (I presume this is what you're disputing since you bolded that part of the quoted text.)

Didn't you say you observed this yourself, and you (again) think this somehow "disproved" the HC model?

Quote
Observational fact
...No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

... and i firmly stand behind it, because i checked the validity of this argument by doing personal observations of the motion of the Sun in the sky during different seasons!

Since your descriptions are pretty hard to follow (see below), can you provide a diagram showing why you think the HC model demands a northerly sun at noontime from north of the Tropic of Cancer? If we can understand where you're confused, it might be possible to explain where your error is. Most likely, you'll just have another tantrum, stamp your feet and call me a liar again.

Quote
At the beginning of the second part:
"According to RET when the Earth is closest to the Sun (in January (closer for 5 000 000 km than it is in July)) due to the alleged Earth's tilt,"

"due to the alleged Earth's tilt" is related to what comes after these words, not before, are you stupid or what?
Then why is that comma where it is? You're saying we need to add "poorly written" to "full of errors and misconceptions".

Your statement says exactly what I am complaining about. If that's not what you meant, you should learn to punctuate.

"Let's eat grandma!"

"Let's eat, grandma!"

Do these mean the same thing? Punctuation: it matters.

Quote
Stop. Just, please stop.

The truth can be really painful, so i won't torture you any more, there is no need for that since every sane person can realize very easily how great and blatant lie HC really is, on the basis of already here presented arguments, but if you were a masochist we could provide even many more arguments against this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics...

What's really painful is trying to follow your tortured "facts" and decipher exactly what it is you're really trying to say.

Quote
You should know better tolerate your own defeats....

As predicted, here we go down another rabbit hole. Since you keep calling me a liar, I don't know why I continue with this. It's like picking at a scab, I guess, and it's become satisfying to point out where you're wrong (although daunting in quantity).


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #208 on: November 02, 2014, 02:09:06 PM »
When is the noonday sun ever north of the Tropic of Cancer?  ???
Quote

Pardon me, i have overlooked that word (noonday), i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

@ Alpha2Omega, now you can respond to these words if you want... (and don't forget: you lose, i win)... No place to hide from the obvious truth, not even a rabbit hole, only deliberately self deluded HC mind...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 17785
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #209 on: November 02, 2014, 02:17:14 PM »
I had plants in my north facing window last summer. It's not a problem for RET, sorry.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.